Freemasonry & the Occult War

Julius Evola proposed that we in the West are in the midst of an intergenerational “occult war” that is the underlying cause of historical developments. Evola frequently explored exceedingly esoteric subjects. His proposition that the world is ruled by these shadowy forces is at once conspiratorial, mystical, and lacking in empirical verifiability. It doesn’t seem like something skeptics should take seriously.

Yet, while one shouldn’t uncritically accept his extraordinary assertion, neither should one uncritically accept the prevailing historiography without a close examination. The notion that history is not what it superficially appears to be, that there are influential elites manipulating historical events from behind the scenes, ought to be taken seriously.

The concept of occult war must be defined within the context of the dilemma. The occult war is a battle that is waged imperceptibly by the forces of global subversion, with means and in circumstances ignored by current historiography. The notion of occult war belongs to a three-dimensional view of history: this view does not regard as essential the two superficial dimensions of time and space (which include causes, facts, and visible leaders) but rather emphasizes the dimension of depth, or the “subterranean” dimension in which forces and influences often act in a decisive manner, and which, more often not than not, cannot be reduced to what is merely human, whether at an individual or a collective level. (ch. 13, “Occult War — Weapons of the Occult War”)

Benjamin Disraeli, a 19th century British Prime Minister (and Sephardic Jew), described the alleged occult war in this ominous manner:

The public does not realize that in all the conflicts within nations and in the conflicts between nations there are, besides the people apparently responsible for them, hidden agitators who with their selfish plans make these conflicts unavoidable. . . . Everything that happens in the confused evolution of peoples is secretly prepared in order to ensure the dominion of certain people: it is these people, known and unknown, that we must find behind every public event.

According to my evolutionary traditionalist model, elites acquire power from one or more of the three cardinal methods: force, influence, or exchange. The oligarchy’s origin shapes its worldview, with the martial elites tending toward honor codes, the managerial elites tending toward laws, and the mercantile elites tending toward contracts.

As a civilization matures, it follows a predictable life-cycle with three distinct phases corresponding with the different methods of acquiring power. In the first age, warlords dominate with force, institutionalizing their reign with kingdoms administered by an aristocratic caste of princes, nobles, and lords. In the second age, the civilization reaches a degree of complexity in which the bureaucratic priests and scribes wield more power through ideological (religion, art, philosophy, journalism) and managerial influence than the aristocrats do through force. In the third age, the merchants become wealthy enough through exchange to buy off or overthrow the warlords, priests, and scribes.

In Western Europe, the aristocratic elite and the priesthood operated more or less above ground in a more or less symbiotic relationship for centuries. However, increasing travel and trade that began at the time of the Crusades led to a growing number of merchants, craftsmen, and peasants who were accumulating wealth but had no way to convert it into political power or ideological-managerial influence. The Throne and Altar, rather than adapting their tactics to retain power in the face of the rise of the Market, generally chose repression.

This forced the mercantile elites to exercise their power in secrecy. What had previously been mere trade guilds transformed into vast decentralized secret societies engorged with capital, eventually culminating in the largest and most effective one: Freemasonry. The invasive Jewish population, managerial refugees of a bygone civilization, adapted to this new reality, becoming adept at trade and commerce while retaining their priestly tradition intact.

At this point in history, Europe’s mercantile elites and the Jews were allied against the ancien régime, both of them carrying out their offensives in an occult war waged through a series of proxy battles with similar themes: liberation, equality, republicanism, free speech, separation of church and state, and similar Enlightenment ideals. This has resulted in the European Traditionalist conception of Judaism and Freemasonry as being synonymous or at least “hyphenated”: “Judeo-Masonic.” America, the brainchild of a Masonic mercantile elite, is perceived as the embodiment of everything anti-European and anti-Traditional.

But is that paradigm accurate or appropriate? America’s founding fathers and her founding documents are unmistakably Masonic and mercantile in character. But is a convenient alliance with Jewry or even substantial influence from Jewry sufficient to dismiss the Masonic oligarchy as Judeo-Masonic?

Finally, it must be pointed out that, if the fact of having borrowed elements from the Jewish tradition was enough for an accusation, then the accusation against Masonry could easily be extended to Christianity itself; and such is in fact the path followed, quite consistently, by radical racist anti-Semitism, in connection with which it was rightly said that anti-Semitism follows the trajectory of a boomerang: leveled originally against Jews by the Church, anti-Semitism threatens to turn against the latter because of what Semitic elements it retains.

While Christianity’s Jewish influence is obvious and undeniable, Europe’s aristocratic elites weren’t immune from this, either. They were thoroughly Christianized, immersed in Levantine myths and symbols, and alienated from their pagan roots. Additionally, as they approached the nadir of their competence, they relied increasingly on “Court Jews” for financial and administrative assistance.

Evola hypothesizes that Jewish promotion of anti-traditionalism in the West may actually be a useful tactic in preserving their own race and their own Tradition:

That the true Jew is as anti-traditional, with respect to the other peoples of the milieu in which he is, as he is tenaciously attached to what is peculiar to his people and to his tradition, is as singular a paradox as it is instructive. The question therefore is whether the humanitarian and democratic sermons of Judaism are only forms of well-thought-out hypocrisy, in the sense that the freedom dreamt of by the Jew within the leveled and fraternalistic world of the Masonic-liberal ideals, and such milieus, would not correspond to the intention of the Jews to melt and vanish into this subnational pulp, but that this freedom would be instead the necessary condition for an unchecked action, aiming at the affirmation of Israel and at the reversal, in favor of this people, of the relations of subordination which it detested so much in the anti-liberal, traditional world. The fact is that everywhere the Jews were given a free hand, they managed to rapidly attain important positions of command in public life while never ceasing to keep in touch with each other with the tenacious, mutualistic solidarity of a sect. Is it possible — as a mathematician would put it — to “extrapolate” the significance of that fact, and to interpret on this basis the general action of liberal-democratic Judaism? It is certainly a serious question. It amounts to asking whether, behind Judaism as an anti-tradition, more or less linked to any given subversive movement of our epoch, there is a Judaism as tradition, the two being in the same relation with each other as an army is to its clear-minded headquarters.

What the evolutionary traditionalist model suggests is that the mercantile elite developed organically, for reasons unrelated to Jewry, and would have likely grown in power until it toppled the obsolete elites, even if there were there no Jews in Europe. (Plato describes the downfall of aristocracy and the rise of oligarchy in Book VIII of the Republic. It was a process that had been observed many times in the city states of Greece, where it had nothing to do with Jewish influence.) The Jews did what was logical: exploited the old order’s failure to adapt to the Mercantile Age to build their own power base, then allied with and influenced the indigenous mercantile elite.

Evola concludes his essay on the relationship between Judaism and Freemasonry with the following synopsis:

From the practical point of view, it is obvious, whatever the case may be, that one hypothesis leads to the same consequences as the other. Politically and socially, Masonry and Judaism combine into one and the same campaign, against which it is good to fight, whether by doing so one fights simply a humanitarian, leveling utopianism, having its principle and its end in itself, or whether, on the other hand, one may by doing so paralyze one of the main instruments in the service of the occult will-to-power of a race which is not ours, and whose triumph, visible or invisible, could only mean the decline of the highest heritage of the best Indo-European civilization.

It is at this point that both Julius Evola and the defenders of Western Civilization have taken a wrong turn. This line of reasoning forfeits the pursuit of mercantile power, the regnant power source of this Age, to a race that is not ours. It guarantees the decline of the highest heritage of the best Indo-European civilization. The Jews are a priestly caste who don’t genuinely buy the Enlightenment ideals they promote, but they rode the tiger — directing their mastery of the mercantile arts toward assuring the triumph of their people.

The modern Enlightenment project of the progressive scientific understanding and technological mastery of nature has roots in early modern esoteric and initiatic groups like the Rosicrucians. Freemasonry is heir to this tradition, but during the 18th century, Freemasonry diverged into two tendencies, a spiritual-aristocratic-conservative camp that was heir to the primordial Tradition, and a radical egalitarian-materialist-revolutionary camp that reduced the occult and Traditionalist aspects of Freemasonry to mere external show and used the lodge system as a means of social subversion. The American and French revolutions were influenced by the latter form of Freemasonry.

I had a question for you. In your last paragraph you assert that with us giving up the Mercantile Power in this Age to a foreign race (the Jews) that we confirm our fate. My question on the Masons would be should we give this organisation up to the Jewish/Illuminati influence or can their be ways we can use this society to our own (Traditionalist) advantage?
Im currently reading “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” and then onto “The lost Keys of Freemasonry” by Manly. P Hall (a 33rd degree Mason). In it he asserts that the Freemasons trace their heritage to the Middle Ages (obviously) but also back to the philosophers of Ancient Greece and the Mystery Schools of Egypt and babylon. So could they be another society keeping the Traditions of Antiquity? Could the Secrets they keep be Secrets that we as Traditionalists (as Evola did) seek?

I am tempted to join the Masons with an intention to rise as high as i can, to learn and to network. Learn their secrets. Because i believe that in the Kali Yuga/Ragnarok we as Traditionalists “Holding the Fort” in the comming tribulations will need to teach people in the next Age the secrets of Tradition and the Mysteries. How can we teach people the Mysteries if we are not initiated into these Traditions ourselves?

Yes, the higher ranking Freemasons are (probably) architects of the New World Order and the Mercantile Age. But, as you said, do we leave this Age to them or do we fight for our Traditional wordview in the context of this Age, by infiltrating the Masons themselves?

I suspect that Freemasonry as an institution probably did emerge from unsuspecting trade guilds at some point in the Middle Ages, but that the golden thread of Tradition had been interwoven into it. I believe the exoteric incubators of esoteric rituals come and go, and am seriously skeptical of the more fantastical assertions about Freemasonry’s institutional origins.

I suspect that Freemasonry itself is a spent force. The work of subverting and perverting it is complete, and it’s no longer a suitable vehicle for infiltration. However, the initiatic and esoteric content may well have been passed through the institution and on to other institutions with Masonic origins. For example, there’s a strong case that the klan originated in and organized around Freemasonry.

“America, the brainchild of a Masonic mercantile elite, is perceived as the embodiment of everything anti-European and anti-Traditional.”

I thought of this, and Mr. Bolton’s remarks on America as well, when viewing these actual website photos, proudly uploaded [indeed] by the school system itself, showing what kids in America’s “heartland” [again, “heart” indeed] are being fed. Remember, “They” hate us for our Freedom Fries!

I’d like to see certain statements quantified. For instance, some of these occultists tend to correlate Jewish power with Masonic power. It’s my understanding that the ZENITH of the American Masons and other secret societies was in the 1920s – paralleling the zenith of the Klan and other nativist groups. The decline of these fraternal organizations coincided with the rise of Jewish power, beginning in the 1920s and continuing into the 21st century…

Anyway, I agree with Jackson that too much emphasis on minor occultist figures (who can explain very little of what’s going on today) is at best a waste of everyone’s time.

My reference to Evola was a means to an end of presenting my thoughts on the metapolitical origins of our political struggle. As such, I don’t believe I’m guilty of indulging in idle fascination with minor occultist figures.

Is Evola-ism going to help repair our Republic? I’d hate to see this site become obsessed with European esoterica as Alternative Right has. They just published a three part series on a little known German aristocrat of the interwar period. Fascinating stuff, that!

I’m all for history and philosophy but the iceberg is dead ahead. Perhaps I’m dull but whatever lesson I am supposed to draw from this essay alludes me. The thing I’ve most enjoyed about your writing, Matt, is that it’s tended to be grounded in time and place, and focused on the immediate future.

I hope this isn’t the start of a series of articles about Evola, Norse Paganism, the ancient codes of the Germanic tribes and such. There is already an abundance of that sort of stuff out there.

I spent about an hour yesterday speaking with a good friend in the movement whose concern about this essay could perhaps be characterized as the very opposite of your own. If you unpack the lexicon and avoid reading too much into my borrowing ideas from Evola, I believe you’ll see that this essay is part of an ongoing effort on my part to present an adaptation of Traditionalist thought that’s relevant in our contemporary White American context and capable of bridging the gap between metapolitical thought and political action.

The thing I’ve most enjoyed about your writing, Matt, is that it’s tended to be grounded in time and place, and focused on the immediate future.

I agree that we can’t afford to waste our time with distractions and detours, though I believe there’s also a very real danger of being so hasty that we fail to develop the coherent ideological foundation necessary for accomplishing our goals. While I’m not trying to imply that you’re promoting anything violent or stupid, I believe Tim McVeigh and James von Brunn are good examples of the disastrous setbacks that can result from attempting to cut corners and “cut to the chase.”

The majority of my writing, radio work, and effort for the movement is and will remain grounded in the pursuit of discrete quantifiable objectives. Though I can confirm from my own testimony that fostering a bond with tradition, nurturing a spirit of stewardship, and perceiving this specific battle as a critical dimension of a Transcendent one is what compels me to keep doing the practical stuff.

I hope that both explains a bit where I’m coming from and relieves any concerns that I’m creeping toward becoming a crypt-keeper.

So long as it is an impossibility to meet in “real life” on a regular basis, these sorts of articles are in line with our situation. I think it might be wise to prepare for hitting the iceberg.

I liked the article. It really is interesting to see analyses of how merchants rose in power and influence using networks like Masonry. Masonry will always, in my opinion, be a counter to the traditional society – it gives minorities a means to network and build power outside the scope of official institutions. Wealth builds faster in these networks because they are often hidden from the government. Also network members help each other, making network members able to avoid corrupt officials.

Racially conscious professional Whites should consider developing their own private networks.

If by Evola-ism you mean the cyclic paradigm of history, better represented in my view by Spenglerism and Yockeyism, then I suggest that more can be gained from such people than the utter banality that seems to have represented much of the American Right for several generations.

Of course, as a New Zealander, I have no room for smugness, as NZers aren’t even in sight yet of reaching to the level of banality; we’re ideologically somewhere around the area of amoebic vacuity, with no insult to amoeba intended, particularly among academics and journalists.

A grounding in such philosophers would tell Americans — and New Zealanders — where we are, why we are here, and where we might end up. Without an ideological grounding one ends up at best with a ‘movement’ that reacts in stereotypical half-wittedness and can be looked on as nothing but a joke.

As for Evola’s comments on Freemasonry, they might explain something of your American Republic and what a curse upon humanity it is, and why it became so.

“This line of reasoning forfeits the pursuit of mercantile power, the regnant power source of this Age, to a race that is not ours. It guarantees the decline of the highest heritage of the best Indo-European civilization. The Jews are a priestly caste who don’t genuinely buy the Enlightenment ideals they promote, but they rode the tiger — directing their mastery of the mercantile arts toward assuring the triumph of their people.”

Interesting. I am reminded of Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method, where he argues that while removing the prestige of Science is necessary for a free society, we need not forfeit any supposed technological toys [the ultimate man in the street argument: what about my iPod!]. There will always be nerds willing to loose their souls to the bitch goddess of Science, and we will ride on their willing backs, “as Greece rode on the backs of unwilling slaves.” What is essential is that they not rule us, or rather, we not let them rule us.

The question, though, from Hegel’s Master-Slave dialectic [where the Slave ironically is superior to the Master, since he alone is able to manipulate nature; the origin of Marx, of course] to Wells’ Morlocks to the Bulterian Jihad in Dune, is can this work, or will the aristos inevitably succumb?

Also, would Guénon not argue that the loss of Tradition [in the West, around 1400] was what made the rise of the merchants possible in the first place? Again, the case of Science; the Traditional West and the East, such as China, were more than capable of science and technology, but never allowed them to flourish beyond a certain point; a question of taste, the Aryan man had no time for such toys and amusements. A return to Tradition would be a return to that attitude, would it not?

I believe your final paragraph strikes at the root of the matter. Guénon asserts that the decline of the ancien régime was the cause and the Mercantile Age was the effect. I’m asserting the opposite. I believe our martial and managerial elites became decadent as a result of the obsolescence of their function. With the decline of function comes the decline of form, which invariably devolves into impotent ritualism and self-parody.

Is Prince Charles a pathetic and cowardly little man who wanders about aimlessly mumbling to plants because British royalty is an obsolete joke, or is British royalty an obsolete joke because the prince is a pathetic and cowardly little man who wanders about aimlessly mumbling to plants?

Prince Charles may be a pathetic, cowardly little man but his talking to plants is irrelevant. If we were to discover that Evola or Ludovici also mumbled to plants, one could just as soon say that they are disturbed oddballs as a reflection of their attachment to traditionalism and anti-egalitarianism. Also, if you want to know what people are truly worth, it is not a bad idea to investigate the small details of their daily lives, such as their particular “toys and amusements.”

For the sceptics who rubbish notions about Masonic conspiracies, a simple look at the website of the Grand Orient of France indicates quite a bit. Continental Masonry is quite open about its influences, while the United Grand Lodge tries to obfuscate or state that the Grand Orient et al. are not “genuine Masonry.” A recent article by me in Ab Aeterno draws from current Masonic sources — Grand Orient Roumania, also associated with the Scottish Rite — to show their claim as to the origins of the European Union, as a significant e.g. of Masonic influence on major historical events.

The mercantile power that is operated in opposition to Tradition, can be put back on track as a supportive pillar of traditional society by the expedient of returning to some basic traditionalist — pre-Reformation — attitudes on usury; and for Americans Father Coughlin’s program for Social Justice provides an example of what can be done.

The mercantile power that is operated in opposition to Tradition, can be put back on track as a supportive pillar of traditional society by the expedient of returning to some basic traditionalist — pre-Reformation — attitudes on usury; and for Americans Father Coughlin’s program for Social Justice provides an example of what can be done.

Precisely! Invert mercantile power and re-purpose it into a supportive pillar of traditional society! I believe China’s Mandarin elites are progressing in this very direction at the moment, with impressive results. It’s probably more wise to use that example than the Jewish example, given how the Jewish entanglement with our mercantile elites in the past few centuries requires a more nuanced analysis that detracts from the main point.

I’ve had my eye on China for a while now. It’s a standing refutation of all the blather about “free markets and free societies are the road to wealth” as Larry “From cokehead to Catholic stooge” Kudlow says.

If they can have prosperity [well, rising GDP, which is all the free marketers care about; along with profits for their rich patrons, which China lacks, hence their hatred], then why not prosperity along with Tradition?

I’ve always said that democracy was a sham, and that the problem wasn’t “we’re ruled by elites” but that it was the WRONG elite. I’m sure, as Feyerabend implied, that the Dawkinses and Hawkings [Dawkings?] would be happy to beaver away at their formulas, curse God, and die, while we happy few profit. Today, we have the opposite, and their toys are used as justifications for their lecturing US on reality. The damned cheek!

Perhaps this is what Evola hoped for in the NS-state; science and economics brought to heel under the rule of a true Elite.

Take a look at this video. Pepe Escobar [at 4:00] talks about how China obtains economic advantage from places like Africa, but without imposing its own ideas, as the West does [“exporting democracy”, end of history, etc.] and thus outperforms the West. Have the Chinese figured out how to get the benefits from “capitalism” without the ideological baggage, as the article here suggests?

It’s interesting that Fr. Coughlin is still referred to, but only as a synonym for “anti-semitic nutjob”. Actually, I’d have a hard time taking anyone seriously who doubted any of the planks on his platform, all of which are still relevant today.